Kamala Harris Is Far From An Enigma

Kamala Harris Is Far From An Enigma

By Ben Emos and Tony Bruce | Wednesday, September 25, 2024 | 7 min read

Recently, critics have argued that Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t fully fleshed out her policies, raising concerns about the clarity of her agenda. Interestingly, this critique mirrors rhetoric often used by former President Donald Trump, who is known for diverting attention from more controversial issues. In this case, it could be seen as a way to shift the spotlight away from growing unease around the GOP’s Project 2025 and the more symbolic “eating of cats and dogs” controversy in Springfield, Ohio.

Project 2025, the Republican-backed policy framework, has stirred concern due to its extreme deregulation measures and rollbacks on protections for vulnerable communities. Critics of the plan argue that it represents a significant threat to public health, environmental safety, and economic equality. The “eating of cats and dogs” metaphor, while not literal, encapsulates the fear that these policies could leave many Americans fighting for basic survival in a system that benefits the powerful.

By focusing on Harris’s policy development, critics may be attempting to deflect from the more controversial aspects of Republican plans like Project 2025. This narrative questions her leadership while downplaying the broader implications of these GOP proposals.

However, the idea that Harris is politically vague seems to be gaining traction among some critics and undecided voters. The Wall Street Journal editorial board labeled the vice president a “mystery” in August, accusing her of making voters “elect her to find out what she really believes”—a charge repeated by the paper’s Joseph Sternberg after her recent debate with Donald Trump. More recently, Bret Stephens of The New York Times, an anti-Trump conservative, expressed his “unease” about supporting Harris, citing her perceived lack of transparency, which he claims has fostered a “widespread perception of unseriousness.”

“The problem that a lot of people have with Kamala is we don’t know her answer to anything,” Bret Stephens said during his appearance on Bill Maher’s program on Friday, defending the views expressed in his column.

Stephens—who stated he is not voting for Trump—is wrong in the merits of his argument. Candidates should earn their support by articulating clear governing agendas, and it’s reasonable to hold all candidates to this standard, especially Trump, who has consistently refused to outline a detailed platform since his 2015 campaign. Criticizing Harris as a “mystery” feels misplaced when figures like Trump have often evaded policy specifics.

Harris is far from an enigma. Her record includes four years as a senator and nearly four years as vice president. While her positions have evolved, they remain firmly within mainstream Democratic conventions. Stephens, for example, questioned in his column what “limits to American support for Ukraine” Harris might endorse. While she hasn’t provided exhaustive specifics, her broader stance on international relations is clear. She supports institutions like NATO that Trump has either ignored or openly criticized. During her first debate with Trump, Harris emphasized, “We understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known.”

iHealth Digital Thermometer for Adults and Kids – Infrared Forehead

True, this doesn’t delve into the finer points Stephens may want, but policy specifics can only be meaningfully addressed once the country confronts the foundational issues of democracy, decency, and truth—issues that this election will undoubtedly hinge on. Trump—who, notably, is often exempt from the expectation that his plans be coherent, detailed, or consistent—is campaigning on an authoritarian agenda. His platform heavily leans on the demonization of immigrants and promises of “retribution” against those he identifies as enemies of himself and his movement. When his “policies” do emerge, they are largely a mix of unrealistic promises, gut reactions, and contradictory statements, all of which obscure his true goal: the consolidation of power.

Given this, the question Stephens raised about what “regulations she’d like to get rid of in her initiative to build three million new homes in the next four years” feels somewhat secondary. The more pressing issue in this election isn’t about fine-tuning policy details, but rather about the fundamental nature of the country we aspire to be. Will we choose a democracy, where policies are debated and enacted in good faith, or an authoritarian regime where power and retribution overshadow governance? This deeper question significantly influences the specifics of any candidate’s platform.

Harris’s stance on these matters doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery. Likewise, Trump’s position is also clear, despite the lapses in memory that seem to have affected some Americans regarding his first four years in office and the ambiguity he cultivates about his intentions for a potential second term. As Ruhle pointed out to Stephens on Friday, “We know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he poses to democracy.” This clarity underscores the importance of understanding the broader implications of the upcoming election, rather than getting lost in the minutiae of policy proposals.

In sharp contrast to the GOP’s Project 2025, Vice President Kamala Harris has articulated a detailed vision for America that seeks to bolster social protections, strengthen the middle class, and ensure equity across the board. Her platform focuses on a comprehensive approach that includes healthcare reform, climate action, and economic justice, with an eye on the future of American democracy and progress.

One of the cornerstones of Harris’s agenda is healthcare. Unlike the Republican plan to shrink government involvement, Harris has long advocated for expanding access to affordable healthcare through policies that build on the Affordable Care Act. She supports and increased funding for mental health and preventive care, aiming to make healthcare a right, not a privilege.

Harris has also been a vocal champion of climate action. She proposes aggressive carbon emission reduction strategies, investments in renewable energy, and the creation of green jobs that not only help the environment but also support economic growth. In contrast to Project 2025’s rollbacks on environmental regulations, Harris’s policies focus on building a sustainable future and addressing the existential threat of climate change head-on.

On the economic front, Harris’s policies prioritize raising the minimum wage, addressing income inequality, and supporting working families through expanded child tax credits, affordable housing initiatives, and paid family leave. This is a significant divergence from the GOP’s trickle-down economic approach, which often cuts taxes for the wealthy while offering limited support to lower-income families.

The juxtaposition between the Republican Party’s Project 2025 and Kamala Harris’s progressive policies offers Americans two vastly different paths forward. While Project 2025 aims to dismantle federal oversight, reduce social safety nets, and prioritize corporate interests, Harris advocates for a government that works to level the playing field and ensures that every American has access to basic rights like healthcare, education, and environmental safety.

In Springfield, Ohio, the idea of “eating cats and dogs” is not to be taken literally but stands as a stark metaphor for the Republican policies that critics say leave vulnerable communities at risk. As the nation grapples with competing political ideologies, it becomes clear that this debate goes beyond mere rhetoric. It touches on fundamental issues of governance, fairness, and the role of government in protecting the most vulnerable.

The choice between these two visions is more than just a matter of politics—it’s a reflection of the kind of America we want to be. One vision strips away protections and favors deregulation, while the other builds on the notion that a fair society provides equal opportunity, safeguards the environment, and invests in the well-being of its people.

As we move toward the next election cycle, the divide between Republican extremism, symbolized in part by Project 2025, and Kamala Harris’s more detailed and humane policy framework, grows wider. Whether it’s in Springfield, Ohio, or on the national stage, voters will have to decide which path offers the best future for America.

Will it be a future where metaphorical “scraps” are left for everyday citizens, or one where thoughtful policies lift everyone and address the challenges of the modern world? The debate is ongoing, and its resolution will shape the future of the country for years to come.

Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.